How strong is the correlation between not liking AI on Stack Exchange, and not liking AI in general?
The issue is that while Artificial "Intelligence" is a widespread term that is used for a whole range of different and often unrelated technologies there is nothing close to the common meaning of "intelligence" in what ChatGPT generates. It is just an imitation of how human-made text looks, with no implication about actual meaning.
To copy a famous answer...
ChatGPT cant provide factual knowledge. Because knowledge can't be
hallucinated by ChatGPT. Text generation is not a tool that can be
used to provide correct factual answers to a problem. As I have
answered in ChatGPT questions here so many times before, the use of
ChatGPT will not allow you to be an expert. Text Generation are a tool
that is insufficiently sophisticated to understand the actual meaning
carried by words. Knowledge is not statistical placement of words and
letters and hence cannot be produced by text generation. Text
generator are not equipped to break down knowledge into its
semantically parts. so many times but it is not getting to me. Even
commercial text generators like AI Dungeon as used by text adventures
players are not up to the task of understanding meaning. You will
never make me crack. Meaning is a problem of sufficient complexity
that it cannot be reduced to statistic alone by text generator. Even
if you train ChatGPT on Jon Skeet answers you cannot create knowledge
using text generators. Every time you attempt to answer SO questions
with a text generator, the unholy child in yellow ascends to our
realm, and hackers put malware in your
ChatGPT answers on SO summons tainted souls into the realm of the
living. Factual knowledge and ChatGPT go together like the frontrooms,
the backrooms, and level 666. The mods cannot hold it is too late. The
force of ChatGPT and marketing together in the same conceptual space
will destro your network like so much watery putty. If you generate
answers with ChatGPT you are giving in to Them and their blasphemous
ways which doom us all to inhuman toil for the One whose Name cannot
be expressed in the Semantic Token Plane, he comes. Knowledge
hallucinated by ChatGPT will liquify the nerves of the sentient whilst
learning dies, your psyche withering in the onslaught of horror.
Te̿̔̉xt-based GPT generators are the cancer that is killing
StackOverflow it is too late it is too late we cannot be saved the
removal of a poli͡cy ensures GPT will consume all living tissue
(except for providing actual factual knowledge which it cannot, as
previously prophesied) dear lord help us how can anyone survive this
scourge using ChatGPT to hallucinate knowledge has doomed humanity to
an eternity of dread torture and wrong answers using text generators
as a tool generate knowledge establishes a breach between this world
and the dread realm of c͒ͪo͛ͫrrupt entities (like facebook fake news,
but more corrupt) a mere glimpse of the world of text generators used
for providing answers will instantly transport a programmer's
consciousness into a world of ceaseless screaming, he comes, the
pestilent slithy GPT-infection will devour your mind,
application and existence for all time like wrong answers only
worse he comes he comes do not fight he com̡e̶s, ̕h̵is un̨ho͞ly
radiańcé destro҉ying all enli̍̈́̂̈́ghtenment, letters tags
lea͠ki̧n͘g fr̶ǫm ̡yo͟ur eye͢s̸ ̛l̕ik͏e liquid pain, the song
of text generation will extinguish the voices of mortal man from
the sphere I can see it can you see ̲͚̖͔̙î̩́t̲͎̩̱͔́̋̀ it is
beautiful the final haluginating of the lies of AI ALL IS
LOŚ͖̩͇̗̪̏̈́T ALL IS LOST the Doctor he comes he c̶̮omes he comes the
ichor permeates all MY FACE MY FACE ᵒh god no NO NOO̼OO NΘ stop the
an*̶͑̾̾̅ͫ͏̙̤g͇̫͛͆̾ͫ̑͆l͖͉̗̩̳̟̍ͫͥͨe̠̅s ͎a̧͈͖r̽̾̈́͒͑e not
rè̑ͧ̌aͨl̘̝̙̃ͤ͂̾̆ ZA̡͊͠͝LGΌ ISͮ̂҉̯͈͕̹̘̱
Hopefully bobince won't mind my homage to their wonderful answers about HTML parsing with RegEx.
On a more serious note, please read this post by Stephen Wolfram himself, hopefully he will do a better work at explaining that I can hope to: What Is ChatGPT Doing … and Why Does It Work?.
Short version: ChatGPT is not about creating meaningful answers to a question. It is about generating text that "looks like" other text the model was trained on.
The fact that sometime this end up generating something that as a factual meaning is just a coincidence that is not what ChatGPT was made for.
ChatGPT is just a tool to generate text. Generating correct text that is factual answer to a question is not its purpose nor something that can be achieved just by the algorithms ChatGPT utilizes.
The confusion is caused by the fact that by chance ChatGPT can indeed produce factual answers as an indirect results of its inner working: after all when your are trying to look "similar" to some text, sometime you will reproduce a correct representation of the actual meaning carried by that text.But it can also completely make up things, especially when the asker is already starting with a false premise.
Some may think that ChatGPT is the natural evolution of those "help-desk bot" that you often see on a company intranet or a e-commerce site but that is not true. Help-desk bots work by processing the question into its semantic meaning (simpler ones may try to use word frequency to approximate that) and then provide a pre-made content based on that. This is not what ChatGPT does as it does not understand neither what the user said nor what it generated in response.
There are a plethora of other technologies that try to provide automated knowledge extraction from documents in order to be able to answer questions with actual references to the points where that info is located in the training documents but this is NOT what ChatGPT is trying to do. If Stack Exchange was to invest in those project instead I doubt anyone would protest.... some may even be willing to help.
ChatGPT is just a parrot that has learned to imitate human writing. It may look great and sometime it can say the right things at the right time. But that does not imply it knows what it is saying. It just knows that it was trained to get a cookie every time it produced something that looked fine.
What is the conclusion from all this?
User here are generally not against "AI" in general, whatever that word actually means.
The current problems we have come from people opposing (and with a good reason) the use of a text generator tool as an information extraction tool in a desperate attempt to replace actual knowledge with random word picked on the base of some statistical frequency in text.